I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by a colleague as an “imperial judiciary” model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee.
On ABC News, Jackson stated, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.
Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” Barrett wrote:
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day.
She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in condemning Trump, his supporters, and his policies.
I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.
Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump Administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump’s priorities and policies:
“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
For Justice Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.
Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only ordered for agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch.
However, Jackson could and would.
The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.
The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of “celebrity justices” where members seem to maintain political constituencies in public events.
Such speeches can not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.
Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary.
The “opportunity to tell people how I feel” can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being “one of nine” is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you.
Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”
This column ran on Fox.com
(Second attempt to post) … I wish one of the Senators questioning her during nomination hearings had said this: “Ms. Jackson, referring to when you said you’re not a biologist, I must ask what seems to be a rather simple question. Are YOU a woman?” I would have liked to seen her response.
They did, J. She said she knew she was a woman and her mother, too.
Where is the “guidance” from the chief justice. He’s such a spineless little man – he should take her into his office and “suggest” that she resign for many improper actions. Just that stint on a broadway play that was so partisan was enough for me to realize what a joke she is.
“He’s such a spineless little man – he should take her into his office and “suggest” that she resign for many improper actions.”
Agreed. Sonia Sotomayor seems to have bigger balls than John Roberts.
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” – Benjamin Franklin
Working on it…
-Oddball
On ABC News, Jackson stated, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
It is not just Justice Jackson who is ruling by her passions because she lacks a
formidablemarginal intellect. Physicians too and worse the storied New England Journal of Medicine are also allowing their Neanderthal traits to dictate medical paradigms for us all. The following NEJM article would have been more honest had it been entitled, “Who will wipe our αssεs?”Who Will Care for America? Immigration Policy and the Coming Health Workforce Crisis
July 5, 2025
N Engl J Med 2025;393:105-107 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2504949
In the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric, health care leaders must find the courage to advocate for policies that support, rather than marginalize, immigrant health care workers. Workforce research to identify gaps in supply and demand, institutional policies that increase visa sponsorships, and coalitions supporting pro-immigrant policies, such as Schedule A expansions (allowing expedited green-card approvals for people entering high-need occupations) can help address shortages, while shielding workers from exploitation. Although much remains uncertain, it’s clear that immigrants are — and have always been — a vital part of the United States and its health care system. Immigration policy must therefore protect the dignity of people who dedicate their lives to caring for others. The recent deportation of immigrant health care workers is our canary in the coal mine: policymakers must act swiftly, or risk endangering the health of us all.
Jackson is only doing what she was taught. Ditto for modern medicine
e.g.
The Faulty Logic behind the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Trans Minors
Scott Skinner-Thompson, J.D.
Published July 9, 2025
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2506282
This approach sets a dangerous precedent in that lawmakers may feel empowered to prevent access to needed medical care out of ideological opposition, rather than reasoned medical concern. Such a result is ominous not just for transgender people, but for all Americans.
like the developing baby in-utero?
Some Americans have abandoned their intellectual roots, their moral code and lost sight of their proper place in the universe. Expect more of the same at an accelerated pace
You should be the next supreme court nominee. well thought out, balanced commentary. A pleasure to read. Need more like you in the judiciary.
The more she writes and talks the less credibility she has. She will likely grow increasingly isolated vs her colleagues who clearly do not respect her. She’s relatively young so for likely decades she will be the poster example on the SC for why DEI is bad, and the icing on the cake is that she’s too trapped within her righteous wokeness to realize any of this.
Judicial advocacy from… certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes
That’s a shallow “nothing to see here, move on” view of this issue where constitutional issues are concerned. Democrat activists in black robes have been forcing more of the Democrat agenda on the American people than voluntarily put in place by electing Democrats. And that’s the reason for the Democrat’s obsession with the judiciary – what they can’t win at the ballot box, they can get from the bench.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the ACLU activist turned SCOTUS justice for decades is a primary example of that. Before her, it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis. Holmes taught future judges to reject the Constitution and precedent; Brandeis taught future judges how to legislate social programs from the bench while clothing it in judicial form. Holmes believed that all political power should reside with judges. The only way to ‘progress’ was to circumvent Congress and the Constitution by giving the courts the right to rule over society. Society’s values were worthless, merely the opinions of the ignorant. Brandeis thought judges should use their power to change society through their own decisions—to achieve Social Justice. He was an advocate of extremely progressive income tax rates to level society, and to create an army of bureaucrats employed by the government.
Both Holmes and Brandeis believed in imposing unpopular social values directly on the public through the power of the courts—regardless of the will of the People or Congress. Both sought to greatly diminish the rights of states and increase the power of the central government. To them, the law was merely an instrument to further political goals.
If their rulings and activism are too far in the past for most here, more current examples of SCOTUS delivering on the Democrat wish list they can’t get at the ballot box aren’t hard to find:
Abortion – Roe v. Wade
C02 is Global Warming – Massachusetts v. EPA
Homosexual marriage – Obergefell v. Hodges
Obamacare… It’s Only A Tax! – two primary decisions and smaller decisions maintaining it since then.
Jackson (and your fellow Democrat members of the Washington DC Bench like Boasberg, Howell et al) are nothing new in Democrat judges claiming the royal prerogative of imperial rule from the bench while protected from the voters. What is different is that they are increasingly indifferent to being seen as doing just that. In Jackson’s case, she has moved on to publicly gloating and bragging about it.
If you still claim myopia prevents you from seeing the extent of overwhelmingly Democrat judicial Imperial Rule From The Bench, consider how many times judicial activism stopped rather than advanced Obama’s agenda to fundamentally change America. Then compare that to how many times judicial activism stopped rather than advanced Trump’s agenda – even when his agenda was to simply enforce existing law i.e. immigration law.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s election slogan: It’s the Democrat lawyers in black robes, stupid.
Lord deliver us from “celebrity justices”, unless they are our own… (you are my exception, Professor 🙏)
There is no American democrat party, if there was they wouldn’t standby and be part of the destruction of the republic. In order to break laws and circumvent the constitution you would need a Ketanji Jackson.
In order to break laws and circumvent the constitution you would need a Ketanji Jackson.
Or an Oliver Wendell Holmes or Louis Brandais. There is nothing new here.
“Or an Oliver Wendell Holmes…”
Yes. Far different style, but in his way, comparable. The lame-brained justice who thought that judicial opinions were an exercise in creative writing. The buffoon who gave us the “gift” that will never stop giving – corporate personhood. That man should have stuck to writing stories like “The Wonderful One Hoss Shay”.
Back in the twentieth century we saved Europe twice. Who’s going to save us?
Back in the twentieth century we saved Europe twice. Who’s going to save us?
By finally putting boots on battlegrounds for the last 37 weeks of the five year war that was WWI? You would prefer to dream that Germany was on the verge of winning against the Western allies on the one side and the Russians they were fighting at their back door?
Boots on battlegrounds in WWII – two and a half years fashionably late after the Allies and then Russians had brought German advances to a standstill? And only after being dragged into it by Pearl Harbour and being forcibly ejected from the Pacific?
Our contributions and the attendant losses were invaluable, particularly in WWII. And perhaps in that war we actually saved Europe from ultimately speaking Russian as we dream we saved them from Hitler (although we then gave a lot of those countries who had been fighting Hitler before we arrived to Stalin – there is that).
But the shallow knowledge of both of those wars is about the only explanation for believing that we somehow or other won both those wars, with just a wee minor bit of help from the Europeans.
First of all in WWI most of know that the Russians got out of the battle so your argument there is off. Secondly, I love how people like you mock us for being late to the party for WWII and how you all seem to admire the Soviets while belittling our contribution while ignoring that without us the Soviets wouldn’t have had any arms to fight the Germans. Let alone England. Now, and this is important, America haters like you love to skip over the fact the it was THE USA that fought the Japanese virtually alone. It is easy to forget that the Empire of Japan was a grave a threat to freedom as the Nazis were and it was us and only us that could stop them, push them back and defeat them.
Of course your pals the Soviets declared war on Japan the day after we dropped the bomb!!!! I guess they were late to that little party, huh?
*. Justice Jackson is the future if courts survive at all. The good guys don’t always win, boys and girls. I meant to say people.
Jackson is an example of chaos. Her mind must be a very uncomfortable place.
An emotional rollercoaster in a black robe is a recipe for unmitigated failure. She’ll be a pariah unless she changes.
You want DEI, then the Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson types are what you get. Unearned diplomas, positions and awards are “unburdened by what has been” (and look who said that!!) in terms of merit, history and virtue. And what can be learned from such circumstances? Great insight into the old saying “stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid” (Dunning–Kruger effect).
Her resume’ should be a badge of honor due to how impressive it is, but in reality it is an indictment of Affirmative Action and the virtue signaling that “educated” white Americans have a need to show.
Jackson was the Law Review editor, like Obama and today a radical Palestinian, just goes to show that the weak little minds attending Harvard Law have the need to NOT elect a white person for this position.
If you think I am off base here then tell us about some of Obama’s great writings. Brag about the clever opinions of Jackson. Also try to defend the radical Law Review after they awarded a guy that accosted a Jewish student, forced him to wear the Palestinian costume against his will $65,000 as a reward. The DIVINITY school also made the other guy attacking the Jewish student the CLASS MARSHALL.
This is much like the media’s change to advocacy disguised as facts. Jackson is a DEI misfit. What ever is going on in that brain of hers has been corrupted by her mental intake of the fake America on television.
Give her the boot.
Autopen nomination, then Joe’s doc pleads the Fifth. This nutjob must be send back.
“Autopen nomination, then Joe’s doc pleads the Fifth. This nutjob must be send back.”
The only reason any of this is reversed is if SCOTUS agrees and rules to allow that. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN – particularly when doing so would depend on Roberts and Kavanaugh (and perhaps wishful thinking about Barrett)
I don’t know, a few more of her “opinions” and the other 8 members of court may welcome any way to defenestrate Jackson.
DEI has produced a class of people whose decision making and foresight come straight from their viscera. She is not worthy of the job.
DEI has produced a class of people whose decision making and foresight come straight from their viscera. She is not worthy of the job.
Questioning Birthing Person Justice Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, while Bill Clinton was president and he and Democrats were agreeing that Illegal Aliens had to be deported and abortions should be legal – but rare.
There was no “DEI” at that time, and no DEI appointments to the courts.
Look at Jackson’s history and progression through the ranks since graduating from Harvard and get an inside look at how judges like her and presidents like Obama have carefully shaped a change in the judiciary and American legal system over the last three decades.
Hey liar, was there affirmative action at that time? Simple question.
Hey liar, was there affirmative action at that time? Simple question.
Hey lush, make a note to yourself: cut back on the day drinking.
Perhaps the court could change the rules from the word Opinion to Legal Decision. That would remove all opinions of the court members from circuit to Supremes, as it should be.
“Such speeches can not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.”
Actually no, that is not the *greatest* danger. That is that judges and justices will begin to view their official decisions and opinions as no more than the instruments by which they may pander to their political constituencies. *That* is where we appear to be headed, given the path we are on, and the incentives that currently exist
Jackson obviously does not understand the limited role of a judge and her editorializing will only further undermine her credibility. She does not have a judicial temperament and was a very poor appointment to the court.
She is making such a fool of herself. I wonder when she will catch on?
I forgot, she’s a lib, no chance!
“She is making such a fool of herself. I wonder when she will catch on?”
She doesn’t care one tiny wit what YOU think. Probably doesn’t much care what Democrats who support her think either.
She knows exactly what she intends to do, which is what she was doing in her previous careers clerking for Justice Breyer, Chair of the US Sentencing Commission, eliminating “racial disparity” in sentencing for drug crimes, removing executive privilege for Trump’s first White House Counsel Don McGahn, etc.
You think her a fool – she’s effective in getting what she wants to do to America… just as Obama was. A lot of us said he was a fool as well – he sure fooled us in what he accomplished!
So Ano, has much has she (accomplished)
Other ticking off her other dem-o-rat judges and looking like a light-weight fool.
Try harder.
So Ano, has much has she (accomplished)
She got lax sentencing for colored felons convicted on drug crimes – meaning they spend a fraction of the time in prison that they would if they were white, and then they’re back on the streets committing more felonies sooner. She successfully stripped Trump’s first White House Counsel of Executive Privilege – something that to the best of my knowledge was never done before.
Lightweight is when you look at the damage she’s managed to do from the bench and claim “That’s of no consequence to the justice system in America”.
Take your own advice with some embellishments: Try harder – start by extracting your head from your ass, get a breath of fresh air, and take a look around.
Excellent column. I agree with your lambast of Jackson and her hyperactive district court judges pals. Let me add that I’ve long thought these street-antics are a cover for an incomplete or even inadequate knowledge of the law, and moreover even to understand the applicable laws, and the ability to argue in proper legal language.
These utterances by federal judges are so crude they remind us of all those street-protestors unable to make a sentence without using multiple f–k references. For example, her ABC statement could just as well been, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell the f*king people in my opinions how I feel about the f*king issues, and that why that f*king President is a dumb f–k.”
Having your version of things, i.e., opinion, spewed to the people as your raison d’etre would indicate that you mistakenly volunteered for appointment to the court, lying that you would uphold and focus your decision based on the Constitution, when instead your goal would be better suited to the current form of journalism. Please spare us. I’m sure MSNBC is salivating for your input.(such as it is)
these street-antics are a cover for an incomplete or even inadequate knowledge of the law, and moreover even to understand the applicable laws
Behind every one of the SCOTUS justices, Democrat madwomen or constitutional originalists, is a bevy of their clerks from the best law schools in America.
When you read the writings of Sotomayor, Jackson – or Bader Ginsberg before them – remember that their law clerks probably had as much input into the draft versions at least, if not the final scribblings with their personal signature on it.
They may or may not have managed to get through the law school they came from with barely passing marks, but I doubt they come from the bottom of the American academic legal barrel. Jackson is from Harvard, and an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
These justices do not have the cover of doing what they do because of a poor grasp of the law. If you believe that’s the reason for their rulings, then you must believe that by sheer coincidence, their law clerks were also particularly poor students of the law.
The reality is that every one of them, along with the law clerks who support their rulings, know EXACTLY what they are doing and intending to do in order to fundamentally change America.
Jackson is from Harvard, and an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
____________________________
Well now. Since Harvard seems to be the college of fools, DEI and jew haters.
Sure doesn’t impress many.
Well now. Since Harvard seems to be the college of fools, DEI and jew haters.
Two of Harvard’s fools, DEI and Jew haters that you may have heard of: Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsich.
To quote somebody you know who just posted this: Try harder.